On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:52:49 -0400
Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com> wrote:

> Bob White wrote:
>
> >Let me re-emphasize this:  Every detail of Ed's analysis looks exactly
> >correct to me.  The Mazda 13B produces power and breathes about the same
> >way a 4 cylinder 2.6L 4 cycle piston engine does, or about the same as a
> >2 cylinder 1.3L 2 cycle piston engine.
> >
> >  
> >
> Yeah, but what if the eShaft had an integrated reduction drive that
> dropped the ouput to 1/3, so that the eShaft output and the rotors had
> the same speed.  Would it then breathe like a 3.9L 2 cycle,  or a 5.2L 4
> cycle?
> 8*)

Doesn't make any difference at all.  It still takes one revolution of
the rotors to complete an engine cycle.  Same number of ignition and
intake events.  It compares exactly like it does now.  It just has a
different number of output shaft revolutions.  


>
> >I also think it sound better to think of the rotary as a 3.9L engine
> >turning 3000 rpm (rotor speed) rather than a 1.3L engine turning 9000
> >rpm (output shaft speed).  It's too bad we can't easily couple the
> >propeller directly to the rotors and eliminate the PSRU.  Now that
> >would be a setup.
> >
> >Bob W.
> >  
> >
>
> We could do that; especially easy on a single rotor.  Press in a
> propeller adapter in place of the rotor bearing.  Then the wobble of the
> propeller would almost be enough to make you think your were flying
> behind a Lycoming again!  The certified crowd would feel right at home!!
>
> (The peanut gallery hath spoken 8*)
>

LOL, no comment.  But watch out for those single rotor guys.  They may
take offense at comparing their projects to a Lycoming.  

Maybe we need a rotor that's twice as wide.  I still want 200 HP.

Bob W.

--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon)
Prewired EC2 Cables - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/